Nnivolcm, I wasn't upset nor did I take anything out on your team. I just used Stafford as an example of what could happen to the Lions if you guys had a similar situation at QB as we did last year. Would NE had won all those games the year Brady got hurt and the following week Cassell was lost as well? Yes, Rodgers makes McCarthy and Thompson look great but if it weren't for either gentleman I doubt Rodgers would be in GB and he might not be the QB he is today without McCarthy. Some in this thread suggest this is nonsense because of what happened with Brohm and other QBs we've had since we drafted AR but as they say - you can't make chicken salad out of chicken droppings.

The bolded was my point the entire time. The same can't be said about Stafford and Mayhew and Schwartz/Caldwell so the comparison you laid out doesn't make sense to me.

You're mixing up to entirely different points. Pugger's point was about Thompson and Mac not being able to develop QB's and the disaster that was last year at QB for us that people love to point to as evidence of that. He is saying that any team that lost their QB1 and QB2 in the matter of a week would be screwed just as much.

Your point is that Mac and Thompson look better because of Rodgers. That's your opinion even though most GB fans would disagree.

Two separate points that are getting mixed up here I think.

The points are getting "mixed up" because they were the original debate:

MNPackfan32 wrote:

Nnivolcm wrote:

While I agree for the most part, I do think that both Thompson and McCarthy are both over rated because of Rodgers.

And I would argue the other way. Rodgers needs McCarthy and Thompson as much as they need him. I'd trust Thompson to find us a new QB, and I trust McCarthy to develop said QB.

Thompson found last year's backup QBs and McCarthy developed them and they were bad. I used that as evidence for my stance that Rodgers makes them look better than they actually are._________________

Nnivolcm, I wasn't upset nor did I take anything out on your team. I just used Stafford as an example of what could happen to the Lions if you guys had a similar situation at QB as we did last year. Would NE had won all those games the year Brady got hurt and the following week Cassell was lost as well? Yes, Rodgers makes McCarthy and Thompson look great but if it weren't for either gentleman I doubt Rodgers would be in GB and he might not be the QB he is today without McCarthy. Some in this thread suggest this is nonsense because of what happened with Brohm and other QBs we've had since we drafted AR but as they say - you can't make chicken salad out of chicken droppings.

The bolded was my point the entire time. The same can't be said about Stafford and Mayhew and Schwartz/Caldwell so the comparison you laid out doesn't make sense to me.

You're mixing up to entirely different points. Pugger's point was about Thompson and Mac not being able to develop QB's and the disaster that was last year at QB for us that people love to point to as evidence of that. He is saying that any team that lost their QB1 and QB2 in the matter of a week would be screwed just as much.

Your point is that Mac and Thompson look better because of Rodgers. That's your opinion even though most GB fans would disagree.

Two separate points that are getting mixed up here I think.

The points are getting "mixed up" because they were the original debate:

MNPackfan32 wrote:

Nnivolcm wrote:

While I agree for the most part, I do think that both Thompson and McCarthy are both over rated because of Rodgers.

And I would argue the other way. Rodgers needs McCarthy and Thompson as much as they need him. I'd trust Thompson to find us a new QB, and I trust McCarthy to develop said QB.

Thompson found last year's backup QBs and McCarthy developed them and they were bad. I used that as evidence for my stance that Rodgers makes them look better than they actually are.

I can't tell if you're actually being serious with this, but anyway.

- You don't think there's a little bit of a difference between looking for a franchise QB and looking for a backup? The amount of resources you're willing to allocate to the acquisition and development of each is completely different.

- The backup spot last year was handled poorly, no doubt about it, but it's a backup spot, if you're going to screw up a spot, screw up a spot that shouldn't be playing.

- Judging either one of them by the backups playing last year makes no sense. How many QBs are we supposed to have acquired and developed to the point that they're capable of winning games for us? About a third of the league has zero. You're expectations before we can call a coach or GM excellent is that they have to have 3 QBs ready to go on a given week? Most teams don't carry 3 QBs on their active roster._________________Playoffs: the combined record of Brady, Manning, Montana, Marino, Elway, Favre, Young, Staubach, Jim Kelly, Phil Simms, Warren Moon, Troy Aikman, Ben Roethlisberger when their defenses have given up 37 or more points? It's 0-24.

Nnivolcm, I wasn't upset nor did I take anything out on your team. I just used Stafford as an example of what could happen to the Lions if you guys had a similar situation at QB as we did last year. Would NE had won all those games the year Brady got hurt and the following week Cassell was lost as well? Yes, Rodgers makes McCarthy and Thompson look great but if it weren't for either gentleman I doubt Rodgers would be in GB and he might not be the QB he is today without McCarthy. Some in this thread suggest this is nonsense because of what happened with Brohm and other QBs we've had since we drafted AR but as they say - you can't make chicken salad out of chicken droppings.

The bolded was my point the entire time. The same can't be said about Stafford and Mayhew and Schwartz/Caldwell so the comparison you laid out doesn't make sense to me.

You're mixing up to entirely different points. Pugger's point was about Thompson and Mac not being able to develop QB's and the disaster that was last year at QB for us that people love to point to as evidence of that. He is saying that any team that lost their QB1 and QB2 in the matter of a week would be screwed just as much.

Your point is that Mac and Thompson look better because of Rodgers. That's your opinion even though most GB fans would disagree.

- You don't think there's a little bit of a difference between looking for a franchise QB and looking for a backup? The amount of resources you're willing to allocate to the acquisition and development of each is completely different.

- The backup spot last year was handled poorly, no doubt about it, but it's a backup spot, if you're going to screw up a spot, screw up a spot that shouldn't be playing.

- Judging either one of them by the backups playing last year makes no sense. How many QBs are we supposed to have acquired and developed to the point that they're capable of winning games for us? About a third of the league has zero. You're expectations before we can call a coach or GM excellent is that they have to have 3 QBs ready to go on a given week? Most teams don't carry 3 QBs on their active roster.

- Well seeing as how we won't get a chance to see how does looking for a franchise QB outside of Rodgers for a very long time, it's kinda hard to make any accurate guesses. The only thing we can look at is the back up situation, which as you admitted, was handled poorly.

- Given how much Rodgers has been hit/sacked/dinged up over the years, you'd think a top GM would make QB depth a point of emphasis. It appears that he'd agree based on the amount of resources spent on QBs since Rodgers took over (they spent a 2nd rounder on a backup QB after all).

- A packer fan was the one who said they trusted Thompson and McCarthy to find/develop a replacement for Rodgers. I've simply pointed out that their is no evidence of them being able to do that at all. If you can quote me where I said that Thompson and McCarthy aren't good, I'd like to see it. All I've said is that I think they're overrated because of Rodgers. They're constantly in the discussion as best in the NFL and outside of Rodgers, I don't see a team that fits that description._________________

- You don't think there's a little bit of a difference between looking for a franchise QB and looking for a backup? The amount of resources you're willing to allocate to the acquisition and development of each is completely different.

- The backup spot last year was handled poorly, no doubt about it, but it's a backup spot, if you're going to screw up a spot, screw up a spot that shouldn't be playing.

- Judging either one of them by the backups playing last year makes no sense. How many QBs are we supposed to have acquired and developed to the point that they're capable of winning games for us? About a third of the league has zero. You're expectations before we can call a coach or GM excellent is that they have to have 3 QBs ready to go on a given week? Most teams don't carry 3 QBs on their active roster.

- Well seeing as how we won't get a chance to see how does looking for a franchise QB outside of Rodgers for a very long time, it's kinda hard to make any accurate guesses. The only thing we can look at is the back up situation, which as you admitted, was handled poorly.

- Given how much Rodgers has been hit/sacked/dinged up over the years, you'd think a top GM would make QB depth a point of emphasis. It appears that he'd agree based on the amount of resources spent on QBs since Rodgers took over (they spent a 2nd rounder on a backup QB after all).

- A packer fan was the one who said they trusted Thompson and McCarthy to find/develop a replacement for Rodgers. I've simply pointed out that their is no evidence of them being able to do that at all. If you can quote me where I said that Thompson and McCarthy aren't good, I'd like to see it. All I've said is that I think they're overrated because of Rodgers. They're constantly in the discussion as best in the NFL and outside of Rodgers, I don't see a team that fits that description.

- Yes, the back up QB situation was a hot mess last year but you're looking at it all with a negative light. We lost our starter and then our #1 back up within 7 days of each other. We were down to Tolzien, a guy who hadn't even gone through TC with us. We really don't know how the back up QB situation would have played out had our back up QB not gotten hurt. Let me ask you this, who was our best QB last year besides Rodgers? It was Flynn. Who just so happened to be drafted and developed by Thompson and McCarthy.

- I'll give you this point. Once Flynn walked, Thompson took the back up spot for granted and didn't put enough resources into the position.

- I trust Thompson and Mac to draft and develop Rodgers replacement because they've proven to be able to before. Thompson took the risk of drafting Rodgers when 22 other teams didn't want to spend the resource on him. They Mac helped develop him into an elite QB. When Thompson and Mac choose to draft and develop a franchise QB, it turned out as good as it possibly could have. As a side note, people like to point to the misses at back up QB like Brohm but they did draft and develop Flynn into the perfect fit for our team._________________
Kempes on the custom sig!

- You don't think there's a little bit of a difference between looking for a franchise QB and looking for a backup? The amount of resources you're willing to allocate to the acquisition and development of each is completely different.

- The backup spot last year was handled poorly, no doubt about it, but it's a backup spot, if you're going to screw up a spot, screw up a spot that shouldn't be playing.

- Judging either one of them by the backups playing last year makes no sense. How many QBs are we supposed to have acquired and developed to the point that they're capable of winning games for us? About a third of the league has zero. You're expectations before we can call a coach or GM excellent is that they have to have 3 QBs ready to go on a given week? Most teams don't carry 3 QBs on their active roster.

- Well seeing as how we won't get a chance to see how does looking for a franchise QB outside of Rodgers for a very long time, it's kinda hard to make any accurate guesses. The only thing we can look at is the back up situation, which as you admitted, was handled poorly.

- Given how much Rodgers has been hit/sacked/dinged up over the years, you'd think a top GM would make QB depth a point of emphasis. It appears that he'd agree based on the amount of resources spent on QBs since Rodgers took over (they spent a 2nd rounder on a backup QB after all).

- A packer fan was the one who said they trusted Thompson and McCarthy to find/develop a replacement for Rodgers. I've simply pointed out that their is no evidence of them being able to do that at all. If you can quote me where I said that Thompson and McCarthy aren't good, I'd like to see it. All I've said is that I think they're overrated because of Rodgers. They're constantly in the discussion as best in the NFL and outside of Rodgers, I don't see a team that fits that description.

- Yes, the back up QB situation was a hot mess last year but you're looking at it all with a negative light. We lost our starter and then our #1 back up within 7 days of each other. We were down to Tolzien, a guy who hadn't even gone through TC with us. We really don't know how the back up QB situation would have played out had our back up QB not gotten hurt. Let me ask you this, who was our best QB last year besides Rodgers? It was Flynn. Who just so happened to be drafted and developed by Thompson and McCarthy.

- I'll give you this point. Once Flynn walked, Thompson took the back up spot for granted and didn't put enough resources into the position.

- I trust Thompson and Mac to draft and develop Rodgers replacement because they've proven to be able to before. Thompson took the risk of drafting Rodgers when 22 other teams didn't want to spend the resource on him. They Mac helped develop him into an elite QB. When Thompson and Mac choose to draft and develop a franchise QB, it turned out as good as it possibly could have. As a side note, people like to point to the misses at back up QB like Brohm but they did draft and develop Flynn into the perfect fit for our team.

I don't know how many times in this thread you guys need to reiterate that after Rodgers went down, Wallace went down soon after. I acknowledged it already. That put the Packers in a unfortunate situation. However, to me that's just an excuse for why TT and MM didn't have better options behind Rodgers. When a poster says they trust TT and MM to find Rodgers replacement, I just don't get it when just last year it almost cost them their season. Flynn was your best QB after Rodgers went down, I agree to that, but lets not pretend that the Packers were even close to as good of team with him playing than they were with Rodgers playing. Not only did they go 2-2-1 with Flynn, but they had a -35 point differential over that span.

So in order to prove that Rodgers doesn't make TT and MM look better than they actually are, you use Rodgers as an example of their success? Aren't you just helping me prove me point?_________________

- You don't think there's a little bit of a difference between looking for a franchise QB and looking for a backup? The amount of resources you're willing to allocate to the acquisition and development of each is completely different.

- The backup spot last year was handled poorly, no doubt about it, but it's a backup spot, if you're going to screw up a spot, screw up a spot that shouldn't be playing.

- Judging either one of them by the backups playing last year makes no sense. How many QBs are we supposed to have acquired and developed to the point that they're capable of winning games for us? About a third of the league has zero. You're expectations before we can call a coach or GM excellent is that they have to have 3 QBs ready to go on a given week? Most teams don't carry 3 QBs on their active roster.

- Well seeing as how we won't get a chance to see how does looking for a franchise QB outside of Rodgers for a very long time, it's kinda hard to make any accurate guesses. The only thing we can look at is the back up situation, which as you admitted, was handled poorly.

- Given how much Rodgers has been hit/sacked/dinged up over the years, you'd think a top GM would make QB depth a point of emphasis. It appears that he'd agree based on the amount of resources spent on QBs since Rodgers took over (they spent a 2nd rounder on a backup QB after all).

- A packer fan was the one who said they trusted Thompson and McCarthy to find/develop a replacement for Rodgers. I've simply pointed out that their is no evidence of them being able to do that at all. If you can quote me where I said that Thompson and McCarthy aren't good, I'd like to see it. All I've said is that I think they're overrated because of Rodgers. They're constantly in the discussion as best in the NFL and outside of Rodgers, I don't see a team that fits that description.

- Yes, the back up QB situation was a hot mess last year but you're looking at it all with a negative light. We lost our starter and then our #1 back up within 7 days of each other. We were down to Tolzien, a guy who hadn't even gone through TC with us. We really don't know how the back up QB situation would have played out had our back up QB not gotten hurt. Let me ask you this, who was our best QB last year besides Rodgers? It was Flynn. Who just so happened to be drafted and developed by Thompson and McCarthy.

- I'll give you this point. Once Flynn walked, Thompson took the back up spot for granted and didn't put enough resources into the position.

- I trust Thompson and Mac to draft and develop Rodgers replacement because they've proven to be able to before. Thompson took the risk of drafting Rodgers when 22 other teams didn't want to spend the resource on him. They Mac helped develop him into an elite QB. When Thompson and Mac choose to draft and develop a franchise QB, it turned out as good as it possibly could have. As a side note, people like to point to the misses at back up QB like Brohm but they did draft and develop Flynn into the perfect fit for our team.

I don't know how many times in this thread you guys need to reiterate that after Rodgers went down, Wallace went down soon after. I acknowledged it already. That put the Packers in a unfortunate situation. However, to me that's just an excuse for why TT and MM didn't have better options behind Rodgers. When a poster says they trust TT and MM to find Rodgers replacement, I just don't get it when just last year it almost cost them their season. Flynn was your best QB after Rodgers went down, I agree to that, but lets not pretend that the Packers were even close to as good of team with him playing than they were with Rodgers playing. Not only did they go 2-2-1 with Flynn, but they had a -35 point differential over that span.

So in order to prove that Rodgers doesn't make TT and MM look better than they actually are, you use Rodgers as an example of their success? Aren't you just helping me prove me point?

So your point is that because our 3rd QB on the depth chart didn't play winning football, Thompson and Mac can't draft and develop? And that our offense shouldn't miss a beat if Rodgers gets hurt?

Show me one offesne that would still be successful with there 3rd QB or show me an offesne with an elite QB that has a back up capable of doing what the starter does.

Your arguments are honestly very weak and I'm not going to bother with them anymore.

Also, I used Rodgers as an example of their success because without Thompson drafting him to GB and Mac developing him, I honestly don't think he's the QB he is today. They've all made each other look good because all three of them knew what needed to be done and they worked their butts of to get it. I really don't see the point in knocking any of them for being together._________________
Kempes on the custom sig!

- You don't think there's a little bit of a difference between looking for a franchise QB and looking for a backup? The amount of resources you're willing to allocate to the acquisition and development of each is completely different.

- The backup spot last year was handled poorly, no doubt about it, but it's a backup spot, if you're going to screw up a spot, screw up a spot that shouldn't be playing.

- Judging either one of them by the backups playing last year makes no sense. How many QBs are we supposed to have acquired and developed to the point that they're capable of winning games for us? About a third of the league has zero. You're expectations before we can call a coach or GM excellent is that they have to have 3 QBs ready to go on a given week? Most teams don't carry 3 QBs on their active roster.

- Well seeing as how we won't get a chance to see how does looking for a franchise QB outside of Rodgers for a very long time, it's kinda hard to make any accurate guesses. The only thing we can look at is the back up situation, which as you admitted, was handled poorly.

- Given how much Rodgers has been hit/sacked/dinged up over the years, you'd think a top GM would make QB depth a point of emphasis. It appears that he'd agree based on the amount of resources spent on QBs since Rodgers took over (they spent a 2nd rounder on a backup QB after all).

- A packer fan was the one who said they trusted Thompson and McCarthy to find/develop a replacement for Rodgers. I've simply pointed out that their is no evidence of them being able to do that at all. If you can quote me where I said that Thompson and McCarthy aren't good, I'd like to see it. All I've said is that I think they're overrated because of Rodgers. They're constantly in the discussion as best in the NFL and outside of Rodgers, I don't see a team that fits that description.

- Yes, the back up QB situation was a hot mess last year but you're looking at it all with a negative light. We lost our starter and then our #1 back up within 7 days of each other. We were down to Tolzien, a guy who hadn't even gone through TC with us. We really don't know how the back up QB situation would have played out had our back up QB not gotten hurt. Let me ask you this, who was our best QB last year besides Rodgers? It was Flynn. Who just so happened to be drafted and developed by Thompson and McCarthy.

- I'll give you this point. Once Flynn walked, Thompson took the back up spot for granted and didn't put enough resources into the position.

- I trust Thompson and Mac to draft and develop Rodgers replacement because they've proven to be able to before. Thompson took the risk of drafting Rodgers when 22 other teams didn't want to spend the resource on him. They Mac helped develop him into an elite QB. When Thompson and Mac choose to draft and develop a franchise QB, it turned out as good as it possibly could have. As a side note, people like to point to the misses at back up QB like Brohm but they did draft and develop Flynn into the perfect fit for our team.

I don't know how many times in this thread you guys need to reiterate that after Rodgers went down, Wallace went down soon after. I acknowledged it already. That put the Packers in a unfortunate situation. However, to me that's just an excuse for why TT and MM didn't have better options behind Rodgers. When a poster says they trust TT and MM to find Rodgers replacement, I just don't get it when just last year it almost cost them their season. Flynn was your best QB after Rodgers went down, I agree to that, but lets not pretend that the Packers were even close to as good of team with him playing than they were with Rodgers playing. Not only did they go 2-2-1 with Flynn, but they had a -35 point differential over that span.

So in order to prove that Rodgers doesn't make TT and MM look better than they actually are, you use Rodgers as an example of their success? Aren't you just helping me prove me point?

So your point is that because our 3rd QB on the depth chart didn't play winning football, Thompson and Mac can't draft and develop? And that our offense shouldn't miss a beat if Rodgers gets hurt?

Show me one offesne that would still be successful with there 3rd QB or show me an offesne with an elite QB that has a back up capable of doing what the starter does.

Your arguments are honestly very weak and I'm not going to bother with them anymore.

Also, I used Rodgers as an example of their success because without Thompson drafting him to GB and Mac developing him, I honestly don't think he's the QB he is today. They've all made each other look good because all three of them knew what needed to be done and they worked their butts of to get it. I really don't see the point in knocking any of them for being together.

It's hard to come up with any 3rd stringers doing well off the top of my head because it's rare that we actually see any of them in a regular season game. So all I can offer up is recently both Kaepernick and Cassel stepping in for Smith and Brady and doing a way better than Tolzien or Flynn did.

Lol at my arguments being the weak one. The only thing you've said to counter my arguments is the excuse that Tolzien (who is one of Thompson's and McCarthy's guys) shouldn't count because he was a third stringer. To bad that third stringer and Matt Flynn are pretty much all we have to go on.

There are several coaches in the NFL who have made a very nice living getting the most out of their QBs. There is no way to know how Rodgers would have turned out in a different situation, so you thinking he wouldn't have done as well anywhere else means squat.

In this whole discussion I've never once said that I think Thompson or McCarthy are bad at what they do. I just think that when they are being mentioned as being a top 3 coach/executive it's because Rodgers has made them look better than they actually are. I definitely don't think they're in the bottom half of the league, just that they aren't as good as many make them out to be._________________

Agree to disagree then. I'm happy with Thompson and the team and coaching staff he's put together to get us a ring and to be a perennial playoff team. Someone wants to downgrade him because he acquired an elite QB, be my guest._________________
Kempes on the custom sig!

I still don't know how Thompson drafting arguably the best qb in the game at #24 overall is a negative towards him. This argument that is being made is so backwards. I'm just glad TT drafted a QB that wins NFCN titles and a SB. I don't care how the team is made up as long as they continue being a super bowl threat year in and out.

- You don't think there's a little bit of a difference between looking for a franchise QB and looking for a backup? The amount of resources you're willing to allocate to the acquisition and development of each is completely different.

- The backup spot last year was handled poorly, no doubt about it, but it's a backup spot, if you're going to screw up a spot, screw up a spot that shouldn't be playing.

- Judging either one of them by the backups playing last year makes no sense. How many QBs are we supposed to have acquired and developed to the point that they're capable of winning games for us? About a third of the league has zero. You're expectations before we can call a coach or GM excellent is that they have to have 3 QBs ready to go on a given week? Most teams don't carry 3 QBs on their active roster.

- Well seeing as how we won't get a chance to see how does looking for a franchise QB outside of Rodgers for a very long time, it's kinda hard to make any accurate guesses. The only thing we can look at is the back up situation, which as you admitted, was handled poorly.

- Given how much Rodgers has been hit/sacked/dinged up over the years, you'd think a top GM would make QB depth a point of emphasis. It appears that he'd agree based on the amount of resources spent on QBs since Rodgers took over (they spent a 2nd rounder on a backup QB after all).

- A packer fan was the one who said they trusted Thompson and McCarthy to find/develop a replacement for Rodgers. I've simply pointed out that their is no evidence of them being able to do that at all. If you can quote me where I said that Thompson and McCarthy aren't good, I'd like to see it. All I've said is that I think they're overrated because of Rodgers. They're constantly in the discussion as best in the NFL and outside of Rodgers, I don't see a team that fits that description.

- Yes, the back up QB situation was a hot mess last year but you're looking at it all with a negative light. We lost our starter and then our #1 back up within 7 days of each other. We were down to Tolzien, a guy who hadn't even gone through TC with us. We really don't know how the back up QB situation would have played out had our back up QB not gotten hurt. Let me ask you this, who was our best QB last year besides Rodgers? It was Flynn. Who just so happened to be drafted and developed by Thompson and McCarthy.

- I'll give you this point. Once Flynn walked, Thompson took the back up spot for granted and didn't put enough resources into the position.

- I trust Thompson and Mac to draft and develop Rodgers replacement because they've proven to be able to before. Thompson took the risk of drafting Rodgers when 22 other teams didn't want to spend the resource on him. They Mac helped develop him into an elite QB. When Thompson and Mac choose to draft and develop a franchise QB, it turned out as good as it possibly could have. As a side note, people like to point to the misses at back up QB like Brohm but they did draft and develop Flynn into the perfect fit for our team.

I don't know how many times in this thread you guys need to reiterate that after Rodgers went down, Wallace went down soon after. I acknowledged it already. That put the Packers in a unfortunate situation. However, to me that's just an excuse for why TT and MM didn't have better options behind Rodgers. When a poster says they trust TT and MM to find Rodgers replacement, I just don't get it when just last year it almost cost them their season. Flynn was your best QB after Rodgers went down, I agree to that, but lets not pretend that the Packers were even close to as good of team with him playing than they were with Rodgers playing. Not only did they go 2-2-1 with Flynn, but they had a -35 point differential over that span.

So in order to prove that Rodgers doesn't make TT and MM look better than they actually are, you use Rodgers as an example of their success? Aren't you just helping me prove me point?

So your point is that because our 3rd QB on the depth chart didn't play winning football, Thompson and Mac can't draft and develop? And that our offense shouldn't miss a beat if Rodgers gets hurt?

Show me one offesne that would still be successful with there 3rd QB or show me an offesne with an elite QB that has a back up capable of doing what the starter does.

Your arguments are honestly very weak and I'm not going to bother with them anymore.

Also, I used Rodgers as an example of their success because without Thompson drafting him to GB and Mac developing him, I honestly don't think he's the QB he is today. They've all made each other look good because all three of them knew what needed to be done and they worked their butts of to get it. I really don't see the point in knocking any of them for being together.

It's hard to come up with any 3rd stringers doing well off the top of my head because it's rare that we actually see any of them in a regular season game. So all I can offer up is recently both Kaepernick and Cassel stepping in for Smith and Brady and doing a way better than Tolzien or Flynn did.

Lol at my arguments being the weak one. The only thing you've said to counter my arguments is the excuse that Tolzien (who is one of Thompson's and McCarthy's guys) shouldn't count because he was a third stringer. To bad that third stringer and Matt Flynn are pretty much all we have to go on.

There are several coaches in the NFL who have made a very nice living getting the most out of their QBs. There is no way to know how Rodgers would have turned out in a different situation, so you thinking he wouldn't have done as well anywhere else means squat.

In this whole discussion I've never once said that I think Thompson or McCarthy are bad at what they do. I just think that when they are being mentioned as being a top 3 coach/executive it's because Rodgers has made them look better than they actually are. I definitely don't think they're in the bottom half of the league, just that they aren't as good as many make them out to be.

That you can't name a single 3rd string QB to see significant time is sort of the point, isn't it?

Kaepernick was drafted as the QBOF for the franchise, you would hope he does better than a place holder. Was Cassell really better than Flynn? Statistically they're extremely similar. Saying that he was way better is obviously not true. Don't make [inappropriate/removed] up to back up your idiotic point.

Regardless, the handling of the backup QB position in one year, should not be any sort of significantly determining factor in ranking a GM's career that's going into it's tenth season.

People act like Belichick is frickin' God's gift to football. His record without Brady as a HC is 52-60. You can play the "How would this GM/Coach do without his QB" game with any personnel and ultimately it doesn't add up to meaning a damn thing.

Instead of evaluating Thompson in the hypothetical universe of "What if he didn't have Aaron Rodgers", why not evaluate him for what he's done? His teams have done exceptionally well overall.

If you can come up with some line of reasoning as to why you think Thompson is overrated other than "Well he has Aaron Rodgers", I'm sure an intelligent discussion can be had. If not, you can take the dunce cap from GaTechRavens._________________Playoffs: the combined record of Brady, Manning, Montana, Marino, Elway, Favre, Young, Staubach, Jim Kelly, Phil Simms, Warren Moon, Troy Aikman, Ben Roethlisberger when their defenses have given up 37 or more points? It's 0-24.

Using Cassel as counterpoint is pretty weak in another sense as well. He was able to play an ENTIRE season after being w/ his team for 3 previous seasons.

Tolzien was signed a few days before the season started...
Flynn was signed DURING the season.

It was very, very obvious that MM developed Flynn exceptionally well. In his 3rd and 4th seasons he played 2 full games and played incredibly well. Had we needed to lean on him for an entire season his 4th year, I can guarantee he would have done as well (if not better) than Cassel did in NWE.

comparing cassel's situation to tolzien/flynn last year is absurd.

Victims of bad timing (and inability to develop another late round QB post-Flynn or retain Flynn). Had Rodgers gone down in 2011 instead of 2013 this would be a very, very different conversation.

I still don't know how Thompson drafting arguably the best qb in the game at #24 overall is a negative towards him. This argument that is being made is so backwards. I'm just glad TT drafted a QB that wins NFCN titles and a SB. I don't care how the team is made up as long as they continue being a super bowl threat year in and out.

Because internet logic. The trolls have made their stance clear, there is no changing the minds of trolls, so why bother. The Rodgers pick was hugely disputed with Favre having multiple good years left. But hey screw facts and logic, I wanna troll._________________